Citation Nr: 0638821
Decision Date: 12/13/06 Archive Date: 01/04/07
DOCKET NO. 04-09 480 ) DATE
)
)
On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
THE ISSUES
1. Entitlement to service connection for cholelithiasis with
cholecystectomy, claimed as a digestive system disorder.
2. Entitlement to service connection for nephrolithiasis,
claimed as a genitourinary system disorder and hyperuricemia.
3. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory
disorder to include allergic rhinitis.
4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye
disabilities, claimed as glaucoma, to include as secondary to
the veteran's claimed genitourinary system disorder.
5. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability,
to include as secondary to the veteran's claimed
genitourinary system disorder.
INTRODUCTION
The veteran served on active duty from August 1952 to June
1955. The veteran also served on active duty for
approximately 2 years and 11 months prior to that period of
service; however, the dates of his additional service have
not been verified.
This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (the
Board) on appeal from a June 2003 rating decision of the San
Juan, Puerto Rico, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Regional Office (RO).
The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management
Center (AMC), in Washington, DC. VA will notify the
appellant if further action is required.
REMAND
This claim was remanded for additional development by the
Board in May 2005. In June 2005, the Appeals Management
Center wrote to the veteran asking for additional information
regarding his service medical records. He was also asked for
additional information regarding treatment he has received or
the claimed conditions since his separation from service in
June 1955. The veteran responded in December 2005 indicating
that he had no additional evidence to submit.
The veteran was provided several VA examinations in the fall
of 2005. Contained in the text of those reports is
information from the veteran reporting post-service treatment
by local physicians from 1955 to 1956. He specifically
indicated that he saw Dr. Ramirez in Cayey. One examiner
reported that the veteran was admitted to the San Juan VA
Hospital in 1986. One report refers to test results from May
1999 and another note relates hospitalization for
percutaneous nephroctomy for right renal calculus in 1986.
These records are not in the claims folder and should be for
proper review of this appeal. VA records are considered part
of the record on appeal since they are within VA's
constructive possession, and these records must be considered
in deciding the veteran's claims. See Bell v. Derwinski, 2
Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West
2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (2005). Complete records of VA
treatment of the veteran for arthritis should be obtained.
Accordingly, this appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the
Appeals Management Center (AMC), in Washington, D.C. VA will
notify the veteran if further action is required on his part.
1. The RO should provide a VCAA notice
to the veteran which includes information
applicable to claims for secondary
service connection as well as notice of
the type of evidence necessary to
establish a disability rating or
effective date for the disabilities on
appeal.. The veteran should then be
afforded an appropriate period of time to
respond.
2. Request that copies of all pertinent
VA clinical documentation pertaining to
treatment of the veteran after June 1955,
not already of record, be forwarded for
incorporation into the claims file.
3. Ask the veteran to furnish the names
and addresses of all medical care
providers that treated him for any of the
claimed disabilities since the date of
his separation from service in June 1955.
Take appropriate action to obtain and
incorporate the records referred to by
the veteran including records from Dr.
Ramirez in Cayey.
4. If additional new VA or private
medical evidence is received, return the
examinations to the physicians who saw
the veteran in September 2005 and ask for
addendum to each report.
a. Ask for an addendum to determine
whether the veteran has a genitourinary
system disability, to include
nephrolithiasis and hyperuricemia, that
is related to his military service or
that was incurred in the one-year period
thereafter. The examiner should express
an opinion as to whether the veteran has
a genitourinary system disability, to
include nephrolithiasis and
hyperuricemia, that is "due to," "more
likely than not due to" (likelihood
greater than 50%), "at least as likely
as not due to" (50%), "less likely than
not due to" (less than 50% likelihood),
or "not due to" the veteran's military
service or that was incurred in the one-
year period thereafter.
b. Ask for an addendum to determine
whether the veteran has bilateral eye
disabilities, to include glaucoma or
ocular hypertension, that are related to
his military service. The examiner
should express an opinion as to whether
the veteran has bilateral eye
disabilities, to include glaucoma or
ocular hypertension, that are "due to,"
"more likely than not due to"
(likelihood greater than 50%), "at least
as likely as not due to" (50%), "less
likely than not due to" (less than 50%
likelihood), or "not due to" the
veteran's military service or that was
incurred in the one-year period
thereafter.
5. After the development requested above
has been completed to the extent
possible, review the record. If any
benefit sought on appeal remains denied,
furnish a supplemental statement of the
case (SSOC) to the veteran and give him
the opportunity to respond thereto.
Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, if in
order. The Board intimates no opinion as to the ultimate
outcome of this case. The veteran has the right to submit
additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the
Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v.
West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).
This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law
requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims for additional development or other
appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.
See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2005).
_________________________________________________
MARJORIE A. AUER
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals
Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the
Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the
nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a
decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.
38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2006).